The assumption I believe you're making (correct me if I'm wrong) is that topical application of meds isn't effective? The fact is, all drugs are absorbed by some tissue in the body and that's how they get into our systems. Whether it's skin, mucous membranes, intestinal tissue, etc that's how drugs get into our system. Many drugs can be absorbed topically as well. Look at all the arthritis products on the market. If you're old enough, you might remember a product calls dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO). DMSO is readily absorbed into skin, carrying with it any other chemical/drug that it's mixed with. (I even remember an old episode of Quincy in which a guy was poisoned because the killer put a mixture of poison and DMSO on the guy's steering wheel...a little embellished, but it's possible).

Correct. I didn't go back to find it but I thought I remembered you guys discussing how this product worked when injected, however, not when simply rubbed on the body. That's basically the whole basis for my point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave67az

The point is, using a banned substance in any form is against the rules because the goal is to get people to stop using banned substances, not to encourage them to be creative ways in finding new ways to administer banned products.

Good answer!

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave67az

As for your example, it was a great movie and has some awesome quotes in the courtroom scenes, but the point remains that the guy ATTEMPTED to buy marijuana. Whether he was successful has no bearing on his intentions. Just as if you try to kill someone, it's still a crime even if you don't succeed.

LOL. Yeah, I realized as I was posting it that the example kind of falls flat because in the end he does, in fact, get punished. :)

P.S. Heck yeah that movie is awesome! I have probably seen it 500 times, and can basically recite the entire thing as I'm watching it. Some scenes (like Nicholson's speech at the end) I can recite even WITHOUT watching it. I gotta get out more. ;)

I think this should answer your question, and this is why I believe it's cut and dried.

Straight from the Anti-Doping Program Manual, page 7...

What other conduct violates the Program?
Other conduct may lead to the finding of a violation and sanctions under the Program, includingthe possession, use orattempted useof a prohibited substance or method; refusing or failing to be tested; tampering with a sample; trafficking in or administering any prohibited substance; or admitting to any conduct that violates the Program.

Well there you go. You're a real party pooper today, you know that Dave? I got all these awesome ideas, and you just keep blowing them out of the water! Stop it!

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave67az

In order to believe that he "wasn't intending to break the rules", don't you have to make a pretty big assumption considering you've admitted you believe he was intending to enhance his performance by administering a chemical that he believed would help him?

I don't know if I'd call it a pretty big assumption, but yes, I am making the assumption that he honestly didn't know that what he was taking was illegal.

Correct. I didn't go back to find it but I thought I remembered you guys discussing how this product worked when injected, however, not when simply rubbed on the body. That's basically the whole basis for my point.

Like I said, the results of the studies are mixed. But just because a majority of people in this forum believe something, doesn't make it true.

Ask Rams linebacker David Vobora about deer antler spray. He tested positive in 2009, was suspended for a month, and recently won a hefty lawsuit against the company because he "thought the product was clean." Apparently it actually can make it to the bloodstream or else he wouldn't have tested positive.

There's also a few other studies (none very good, in my opinion) that show benefits from the spray. But just because they were poorly conducted studies doesn't mean it doesn't work.

When MLB banned deer antler spray in 2011, some players had been spraying it under their tongue to absorb a little more effectively (similar to the Nitro spray that we gave chest pain patients when I worked in the ER).

When MLB banned deer antler spray in 2011, some players had been spraying it under their tongue to absorb a little more effectively (similar to the Nitro spray that we gave chest pain patients when I worked in the ER).

And don't forget how effective nicotine patches are!

I sincerely doubt spraying under the tongue would do anything. IGF-1 is quite closely related to insulin and there's no formulation yet (that I know of) for insulin that'll do anything unless injected.

Nicotine and nitro are chemically miles away from IGF-1 - the fact both of them can be used the way they are doesn't really mean we can extrapolate that IGF-1 administration would work the same way.

I sincerely doubt spraying under the tongue would do anything. IGF-1 is quite closely related to insulin and there's no formulation yet (that I know of) for insulin that'll do anything unless injected.

Nicotine and nitro are chemically miles away from IGF-1 - the fact both of them can be used the way they are doesn't really mean we can extrapolate that IGF-1 administration would work the same way.

IGF-1 is absorbed by digestive tissue (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8932606) and most drugs that can be absorbed in the GI tract also absorb into the mucous membranes under the tongue (sometimes quicker, sometimes slower).

As for oral insulin, Biocon created IN-105. Good news for diabetics out there, but it still has to undergo a little more testing before it can be FDA-approved. I'm tempted to buy some stock in Bristol-Meyers Squibb since they bought the rights to the new drug.

1. Just because studies about deer antler spray have mixed results doesn't mean that it proves there is no benefit.

2. The active ingredient in deer antler spray is on the banned list because it has been proven to enhance performance in some forms (injected, for instance).

3. The banned substance list doesn't differentiate between application methods and all the golfers on the tour know this. Therefore if you use a product on the banned substance list regardless of what form in which you're using it, you are in violation of the rules.

It's not the USGA/PGA's job to conduct studies to prove that a substance provides benefit in EVERY form before placing it on the banned list. It's cut and dried. If you use a substance on the banned list, you're in violation of the rules.

It doesn't get much more simple than that, and if you can't abide by the rules then you need to find a different job. People who try to skate around loopholes don't get a free pass just because "well there's no proof that it enhanced my performance." That demonstrates a clear lack of moral character, doesn't it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamo

It's on the banned list. He broke the rules.

If you want to argue that it shouldn't be banned, that's a separate debate.

BUT...if the substance taken doesnt actually improve performance whats the point of it being punished...or even why SHOULD someone be punished?

If the spray form provides no benefit then the spray form shouldnt be on the ban list...and as a few commentators have noted, at best its not proven that the spray form provides any unfair advantage to the user anyway.

In that case surely the best way forward is for the USGA to get someone to positively identify what the effects of the spray form are...especially if, as many of you seem to be, the issue could end someones career?

If the spray form provides no benefit then the spray form shouldnt be on the ban list...and as a few commentators have noted, at best its not proven that the spray form provides any unfair advantage to the user anyway.

Because why try to split hairs like this? The substance itself is illegal. What if in three months someone makes a spray form that is effective? How do you define "spray" form?

It's easier to say "this is banned" rather than trying to define the efficacy of various methods of use, and constantly keep watch on those for changes and variations on the effectiveness and the use.

What if you cut yourself and "sprayed" it on your body that way? You can't even define the "uses" accurately.

BUT...if the substance taken doesnt actually improve performance whats the point of it being punished...or even why SHOULD someone be punished?

If the spray form provides no benefit then the spray form shouldnt be on the ban list...and as a few commentators have noted, at best its not proven that the spray form provides any unfair advantage to the user anyway.

In that case surely the best way forward is for the USGA to get someone to positively identify what the effects of the spray form are...especially if, as many of you seem to be, the issue could end someones career?

Regards

Mailman

I almost feel like you read my post and ignored everything I said.

When I say that studies have mixed results, I mean that some studies shows it DOES improve performance and some show it doesn't.

In other words, your statement that it "provides no benefit" is based on conjecture and assumptions, rather than the data which is inconclusive.

Since we know WITHOUT A DOUBT that IGF-1 injected improves performance, and since MIXED RESULTS have been obtained from studies of the spray, it's best to lean toward the conservative side and keep it IN ALL FORMS on the banned list.

And as I said before, it's not the USGA's job to do medical testing on every new drug out there to determine whether it should be on the list.

Again, the goal is to get people to stop using PED's, not to encourage them to create new ways to administer them as a loophole.

If you're looking for loopholes around every rule to try to gain advantages over your friends, your ethics are horrible and you don't deserve a spot on the tour, in my opinion. If you are so immoral that you don't understand the SPIRIT of a rule, then the fact that you might be sanctioned from a few tourneys is the least of your concerns in life.

BUT...if the substance taken doesnt actually improve performance whats the point of it being punished...or even why SHOULD someone be punished?

If the spray form provides no benefit then the spray form shouldnt be on the ban list...and as a few commentators have noted, at best its not proven that the spray form provides any unfair advantage to the user anyway.

In that case surely the best way forward is for the USGA to get someone to positively identify what the effects of the spray form are...especially if, as many of you seem to be, the issue could end someones career?

Regards

Mailman

I think Dave was pretty clear yesterday as to why this is wrong ... trust me, I tried hard to back you, but there is no leg to stand on :) ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

Because why try to split hairs like this? The substance itself is illegal. What if in three months someone makes a spray form that is effective? How do you define "spray" form?

It's easier to say "this is banned" rather than trying to define the efficacy of various methods of use, and constantly keep watch on those for changes and variations on the effectiveness and the use.

What if you cut yourself and "sprayed" it on your body that way? You can't even define the "uses" accurately.

Another good answer ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave67az

I almost feel like you read my post and ignored everything I said.

When I say that studies have mixed results, I mean that some studies shows it DOES improve performance and some show it doesn't.

In other words, your statement that it "provides no benefit" is based on conjecture and assumptions, rather than the data which is inconclusive.

Since we know WITHOUT A DOUBT that IGF-1 injected improves performance, and since MIXED RESULTS have been obtained from studies of the spray, it's best to lean toward the conservative side and keep it IN ALL FORMS on the banned list.

And as I said before, it's not the USGA's job to do medical testing on every new drug out there to determine whether it should be on the list.

Again, the goal is to get people to stop using PED's, not to encourage them to create new ways to administer them as a loophole.

If you're looking for loopholes around every rule to try to gain advantages over your friends, your ethics are horrible and you don't deserve a spot on the tour, in my opinion. If you are so immoral that you don't understand the SPIRIT of a rule, then the fact that you might be sanctioned from a few tourneys is the least of your concerns in life.

Also good, however, I believe one of Dave's first answers to me yesterday pretty much sums it up ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave67az

The point is, using a banned substance in any form is against the rules because the goal is to get people to stop using banned substances, not to encourage them to be creative in finding new ways to administer banned products.

And as he also pointed out (in blue above) just possessing banned substances is against the rules, so it is completely irrelevant how you attempt to use it. (Also banned from the blue above) :)

It's not as cut and dry as you'd like it to be, which was part of the point I was making earlier. For example, a common supplement that I don't believe is on any banned list is protein shakes. Whey and Casein proteins are shown to have varying levels of IGF-1 depending on whether it's concentrated or isolate. If it's a violation of the rules to "possess" supplements that contain IGF-1, then according to that rule, anyone using whey or casein protein powders is breaking the rule in the same way that Vijay did.

As I said earlier, it's a slippery slope and I don't think the ruling committees fully comprehend the Pandora box they are opening here.

It's not as cut and dry as you'd like it to be, which was part of the point I was making earlier. For example, a common supplement that I don't believe is on any banned list is protein shakes. Whey and Casein proteins are shown to have varying levels of IGF-1 depending on whether it's concentrated or isolate. If it's a violation of the rules to "possess" supplements that contain IGF-1, then according to that rule, anyone using whey or casein protein powders is breaking the rule in the same way that Vijay did.

As I said earlier, it's a slippery slope and I don't think the ruling committees fully comprehend the Pandora box they are opening here.

Neither whey nor casein contain IGF-1. Whey ingestion provides no increase in IGF-1. Casein ingestion, however, DOES provide an increase in serum IGF-1 levels. So I think your only logical argument here is that casein ingestion has a similar effect as taking IGF-1. Unfortunately I haven't seen any studies which compare casein ingestion and direct IGF-1 use and the resulting IGF-1 levels, but I think that's relevant if we're going to ban casein, too...don't you?

Now, maybe you're right that casein needs to be added to the banned list because it can have the same effects as taking IGF-1. But that doesn't make Vijay's case any less "cut and dried". Just because there are other drugs that need to be banned doesn't excuse you from using drugs already on the banned list. That's similar to saying "well, I should be able to do heroin because there are other drugs that have similar effects but they aren't illegal yet."

So I'm still missing your argument.

Are you stating that banning any performance enhancing drugs is a "Pandora box"?

I will totally agree that the list should be dynamic, as science tells us more about what effect different chemicals/drugs have on our system. But if your argument is that we shouldn't ban anything because if we do we may have to ban a bunch more things, I'm not seeing the logic.

I've read a number of studies that indicates whey protein does contain IGF-1 so we may have to agree to disagree there.

As to my point, it's going to become virtually impossible to ban every substance and product that contains a chemical or hormone that is on the banned list. Eventually, using your logic and the current wording of the rules, athletes will be unable to eat or drink anything without fear of failing a drug test or violating a PEDs rules. At some point you have to refine the list and focus on what's considered true PEDs and testing.

If A-Rod and Ryan Braun can get away with using HGH and anabolic steroids because the testing and procedures are flawed, who really cares about deer antler spray?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave67az

Neither whey nor casein contain IGF-1. Whey ingestion provides no increase in IGF-1. Casein ingestion, however, DOES provide an increase in serum IGF-1 levels. So I think your only logical argument here is that casein ingestion has a similar effect as taking IGF-1. Unfortunately I haven't seen any studies which compare casein ingestion and direct IGF-1 use and the resulting IGF-1 levels, but I think that's relevant if we're going to ban casein, too...don't you?

Now, maybe you're right that casein needs to be added to the banned list because it can have the same effects as taking IGF-1. But that doesn't make Vijay's case any less "cut and dried". Just because there are other drugs that need to be banned doesn't excuse you from using drugs already on the banned list. That's similar to saying "well, I should be able to do heroin because there are other drugs that have similar effects but they aren't illegal yet."

So I'm still missing your argument.

Are you stating that banning any performance enhancing drugs is a "Pandora box"?

I will totally agree that the list should be dynamic, as science tells us more about what effect different chemicals/drugs have on our system. But if your argument is that we shouldn't ban anything because if we do we may have to ban a bunch more things, I'm not seeing the logic.

I've read a number of studies that indicates whey protein does contain IGF-1 so we may have to agree to disagree there.

As to my point, it's going to become virtually impossible to ban every substance and product that contains a chemical or hormone that is on the banned list. Eventually, using your logic and the current wording of the rules, athletes will be unable to eat or drink anything without fear of failing a drug test or violating a PEDs rules. At some point you have to refine the list and focus on what's considered true PEDs and testing.

If A-Rod and Ryan Braun can get away with using HGH and anabolic steroids because the testing and procedures are flawed, who really cares about deer antler spray?

I'm missing your point.

You say it's virtually impossible to ban every substance that contains the drugs/chemicals on the banned list.

The list of banned substances is small. Your statement that "athletes will be unable to eat or drink anything" assumes that these banned substances are in everything, but they aren't.

Exaggerations are contrary to logical arguments, as is your reasoning that since some guys get off on loopholes, the entire system should be scrapped.

Might as well scrap the justice system and disband law enforcement and the courts since O.J. was found not guilty, right?

Because why try to split hairs like this? The substance itself is illegal. What if in three months someone makes a spray form that is effective? How do you define "spray" form?

It's easier to say "this is banned" rather than trying to define the efficacy of various methods of use, and constantly keep watch on those for changes and variations on the effectiveness and the use.

What if you cut yourself and "sprayed" it on your body that way? You can't even define the "uses" accurately.

Exactly. Sport regulators should not be in the business of specifying or describing routes of administration, sites of administration, doses, excipients (i.e. other compounds in the formulation), pharmacological effects and the like. To do so would be to invite attempts to circumvent the regs by unscrupulous and well-financed individuals with the right contacts. It is enough to list the banned substances.

Whoever posted about DMSO knew what they were talking about. I used to use it sometimes (on rats or mice) to promote percutaneous absorption of certain chemicals that otherwise did not penetrate the skin. It's also a very powerful solvent - every lab should have some ....

When I say that studies have mixed results, I mean that some studies shows it DOES improve performance and some show it doesn't.

In other words, your statement that it "provides no benefit" is based on conjecture and assumptions, rather than the data which is inconclusive.

Since we know WITHOUT A DOUBT that IGF-1 injected improves performance, and since MIXED RESULTS have been obtained from studies of the spray, it's best to lean toward the conservative side and keep it IN ALL FORMS on the banned list.

And as I said before, it's not the USGA's job to do medical testing on every new drug out there to determine whether it should be on the list.

What you are saying is that someone is GUILTY until proven innocent. IF there are mixed results then the USGA MUST push for testing until they get confirmation the spray can enhance performance otherwise they are doing exactly what you said, basing their ban on nothing more than conjecture and assumptions.

Certainly if someone is going to be banned and have their career jeapardised then its in the USGA's best interests to ensure a certain product is tested until the cows come home to either prove or disprove that substance enhances performance.

Finally, I would have thought the more conservative approach would have been to assume someone is innocent until PROVEN guilty. To me it seems you are erring on the exact opposite, that someone is guity until proven innocent.

We have banned substances out there like HGH and anabolic steroids that are proven to be PEDS.

The current testing for these substances is flawed. Where there is random testing it's not truly random and the tests being utilized in most of professional sports are knowingly inferior to what's available. I don't believe this is accidental, the unions and league want there to be the guise of testing to appease the media and public. The PGA Tour only tests urine, not blood, so they are unable to detect HGH or IGF-1 because it's not detectable in urine. If Vijay didn't admit his use of deer antler spray, he'd have never been caught which is even more ridiculous given the delivery method of IGF-1 in deer antler spray is known to be completely ineffective.

The PGA Tour has no transparency, they handle violations, penalties and content of their announcements at their discretion. We might never know if someone of Tiger's stature has failed a drug test or if he receives the same penalty as Doug Barron.

Loopholes like the one Ryan Braun used to escape penalty can allow a cheater to not be penalized despite a failed test.

If an organization is really concerned about cleaning up their sport they should at least have a test in place that tests for the two most proven PEDS. Why have an exhaustive list of drugs that are banned (and could be present in normal foods) and then knowingly use flawed testing, allow the potential for procedural disqualification of the test results and have no transparency within the organization?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave67az

I'm missing your point.

You say it's virtually impossible to ban every substance that contains the drugs/chemicals on the banned list.

The list of banned substances is small. Your statement that "athletes will be unable to eat or drink anything" assumes that these banned substances are in everything, but they aren't.

Exaggerations are contrary to logical arguments, as is your reasoning that since some guys get off on loopholes, the entire system should be scrapped.

Might as well scrap the justice system and disband law enforcement and the courts since O.J. was found not guilty, right?

The current testing for these substances is flawed. Where there is random testing it's not truly random and the tests being utilized in most of professional sports are knowingly inferior to what's available. I don't believe this is accidental, the unions and league want there to be the guise of testing to appease the media and public. The PGA Tour only tests urine, not blood, so they are unable to detect HGH or IGF-1 because it's not detectable in urine. If Vijay didn't admit his use of deer antler spray, he'd have never been caught which is even more ridiculous given the delivery method of IGF-1 in deer antler spray is known to be completely ineffective.

And this is the point Im trying to drive at here...IF deer antler spray is snake oil as most people think it is then surely it should be removed from the ban list UNLESS the USGA can prove it actually enhances performance?

Seems to me that this whole issue could be cleared up pretty quickly IF the USGA actually wanted to clear it up.

What you are saying is that someone is GUILTY until proven innocent. IF there are mixed results then the USGA MUST push for testing until they get confirmation the spray can enhance performance otherwise they are doing exactly what you said, basing their ban on nothing more than conjecture and assumptions.

Certainly if someone is going to be banned and have their career jeapardised then its in the USGA's best interests to ensure a certain product is tested until the cows come home to either prove or disprove that substance enhances performance.

Finally, I would have thought the more conservative approach would have been to assume someone is innocent until PROVEN guilty. To me it seems you are erring on the exact opposite, that someone is guity until proven innocent.

Regards

Mailman

I can't make this any more simple for you. There are rules in the PGA. The players are informed of the rules in writing. The players agree to abide by the rules WHETHER YOU OR THEY LIKE THEM OR NOT. Vijay broke SEVERAL rules in the PGA's Anti-Doping Program. He had a list of banned substances (ALL PGA players have the same list). He purchased a banned substance. He administered a banned substance. He then admitted to purchasing and administering a banned substance. Do I need to post the program manual for you again?

And for the rest of you who are giving him the benefit of the doubt and believing him when he said he didn't know there was any IGF-1 in the stuff, why don't you take a look at the company's website. They have no problem admitting that IGF-1 is the main ingredient in the spray. So what's Vijay's excuse...all the sudden he forgot how to read?

"The very delicate and unique nutritional properties of S.W.A.T.S Sports Spray (such as IGF-1 and other growth factors) would be completely destroyed by the hydrochloric acid bath in the stomach if digested. Even though many of the amino acids, minerals, and some vitamins found in antler velvet can be absorbed via the digestive tract, the dozens of rare and extremely unique nutrients would be destroyed before thy could be used by the body. A sub-lingual system would provide a slightly better absorption, but many of the unique nutrients would either not be able to pass through the mucosa or be destroyed by saliva."

There's also a list of ingredients at the bottom that includes IGF-1.

This is the product that Vijay admitted to using every couple of hours, every day.

I'm baffled at what "proof" you need. Vijay admitted to using it, his admission was recorded, and admitting to using a banned substance is against the rules. Let me clarify that, in case you're still not getting it. EVEN IF HE NEVER BOUGHT OR USED A BANNED SUBSTANCE, IF HE CLAIMED HE USED A BANNED SUBSTANCE HE WOULD STILL BE IN VIOLATION OF THE RULES because admitting to it is ALSO a violation.

You don't get to decide what rules you must follow. Maybe you haven't learned that lesson yet, but that's the way the world works. There are rules, he knew about the rules, he admitted to breaking them. Case closed. You can whine about whether IGF-1 should be on the banned list all you want, but that doesn't excuse anyone. The list was well-known. The list was distributed to the players. It's not freakin' rocket science. If you use one of these products, you will be punished. How dumb do you think Vijay is that it needs to be further simplified for him?

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Okay, I'll clarify and simplify, since you're still missing my point.

We have banned substances out there like HGH and anabolic steroids that are proven to be PEDS.

The current testing for these substances is flawed. Where there is random testing it's not truly random and the tests being utilized in most of professional sports are knowingly inferior to what's available. I don't believe this is accidental, the unions and league want there to be the guise of testing to appease the media and public. The PGA Tour only tests urine, not blood, so they are unable to detect HGH or IGF-1 because it's not detectable in urine. If Vijay didn't admit his use of deer antler spray, he'd have never been caught which is even more ridiculous given the delivery method of IGF-1 in deer antler spray is known to be completely ineffective.

The PGA Tour has no transparency, they handle violations, penalties and content of their announcements at their discretion. We might never know if someone of Tiger's stature has failed a drug test or if he receives the same penalty as Doug Barron.

Loopholes like the one Ryan Braun used to escape penalty can allow a cheater to not be penalized despite a failed test.

If an organization is really concerned about cleaning up their sport they should at least have a test in place that tests for the two most proven PEDS. Why have an exhaustive list of drugs that are banned (and could be present in normal foods) and then knowingly use flawed testing, allow the potential for procedural disqualification of the test results and have no transparency within the organization?

1. Very true. And it's also scientifically proven that IGF-1, just like HGH and steroids, is proven to be a PED.

2. Blood testing should be used, in my opinion. I'll agree with you there. HOWEVER, I'm tired of there being different rules for me than there are for you. I've posted plenty of study results backing up every claim I've made. How about posting your source that proves that "deer antler spray is known to be completely ineffective." (and I hope you have something better than the opinions of a bunch of golfers on this website)

3. The lack of transparency in organizations is in-part to protect the individuals. If they found out about a golfer's drug problem and were required to report that to the media, can you imagine how it could hurt a career? How about asking John Daly the effects of the media when you're trying to fix your life. Honestly, it's none of your business whether or not someone fails a drug test. Who the heck do you think you are? That's between the PGA Tour and the players, and I'm pretty sure the players find out. We had the same issues in the military whenever some guys got in trouble (DUI, etc) but it wasn't long before everyone knew about it. As for the media and YOU being notified, as I said, it's none of your business.

4. Ryan Braun didn't get off because of a "loophole". He got off because procedures weren't followed. While YOU may call it a loophole, I can tell you having worked with the Air Force Drug Demand Reduction Program (urine testing) for several years, we have STRICT procedures we have to follow to ensure chain of custody of the sample because in order for it to stand up in court it has to be IMPOSSIBLE for the sample to have been tampered with. I've testified in court martials against individuals who failed urine tests. I can tell you there is a STRICT procedure that has to be followed, and if it's not followed then the sample is invalid...simple as that. It should have never been tested because the sample was compromised. It's not a loophole. It's a failure to follow procedures, and the guys who are testing the samples HAVE to follow procedures or else they need to find another job.

I have to disagree with your final comment. We do not have an "exhaustive list" of banned substances. There are seven classes of substances that are banned. If someone isn't intelligent enough to know if something falls into one of those categories, the PGA manual even breaks it down into a bunch of examples of those drugs.